Aptness for Metaphors and Similes

Mahmood Hashemian

m72h@hotmail.com

Shahrekord University

Abstract

Aptness, defined as how the vehicle is well able to cover the salient features of the

tenor (e.g., oil is like liquid gold vs. a train is like a worm), is claimed to be an

important factor in the preference for metaphors over similes, or vice versa. This

study was an attempt to test for the supposed correlation between the perceived

degree of aptness and a priori stylistic preference for metaphors and similes by

Iranian L2 learners. Participants, aged 20-25, were selected from 80 EFL Translation

undergraduates. In the first place, they were asked to read 2 alternative lists of the

same sentences (lists A and B) and to rate each sentence as to its appropriateness by

filling in a number between 2 endpoints of 1 (very inappropriate) and 7 (very

appropriate). In the second place, they were invited to consider the 2 alternative

forms of the same sentence and to say which one they preferred: the metaphor or the

simile form. Results revealed no such strong or moderate relationship between the

perceived mean aptness ratings and the mean preference scores for the simile and

metaphor versions (r = -0.014 for the metaphors; r = 0.014 for the similes). All

things considered, the perceived degree of aptness failed to predict the stylistic

preference for metaphors and similes. This comes to the rejection of the validity of

the claim put forth by Chiappe and Kennedy (1999) regarding the predictive power

of aptness to inform the preference of metaphors and similes by Iranian L2 learners.

Keywords: Aptness; Metaphor; Simile; Stylistic preference; Tenor; Vehicle

1. Introduction

Figurative language accounts for a large proportion of linguistic

expressions one routinely uses in everyday verbal communication (Van Lancker,

2003). This, in main, manifests itself in such heavily figurative-laden tropes as

similes and, in particular, m

metaphors, found in both oral and written discourse, would bear testimony to this

forthright claim.

2 | IJALS 2 (1)

First, some technical terms need to be defined. A simile is an expression in

which something is compared to something else by the use of such function words

as like or as. In Tom eats like a horse

However, in a metaphor, no such function words are used. Something is described

by directly stating another thing with which it can be compared. In Her words

stabbed at his heart, the words did not actually stab, but their effect is compared to

the stabbing of a knife. So, as is evident, metaphors and similes are structurally and

lexically identical except for the presence of the explicit comparison marker like in

the simile.

Both metaphors and similes feature two important components, namely

tenor (topic) and vehicle. According to Kitty (as cited in Cameron & Low, 1999),

tenor (topic) is defined as the entity, idea, or action which the figure of speech is

talking about (e.g., That lie is a boomerang!). Also, vehicle is defined as the entity,

idea, or action in terms of which tenor is compared (e.g., That lie is a boomerang!).

Vehicle counts the object of comparison. What the tenor and the vehicle have in

common is the ground (in this case, the backfiring of the action on its originator). It

is this part of metaphor which must be properly understood in order for successful

comprehension of metaphor to click into place for the listener and the reader (Harris

et al., 2006). Tenor and vehicle can be both concrete and abstract. Frequently, tenor

is abstract to make the comparison more vivid.

Given that metaphor and simile are of the essence, it is little wonder that

there has been a vast body of research on figurative language (e.g., Cameron & Low,

1999; Roberts & Kreuz, 1994; Steen 2004). After all, those scholars intrigued by this

amazing figurative dimension of language use are sure to come up with many

questions in their minds. They may desire to know about the ways individuals can

perceive and produce cognitively a metaphorical piece of language. Specifically,

they may long for the adoption of a systematic approach to examine the steps

language users take to perceive and produce a text, oral or written, with instances of

metaphor.

As Harris, Friel, and Mickelson (2006) believe, studies on figurative

language have taken two sides: comprehension and production. As for the former,

the area of L1 and L2 research abounds with miscellaneous studies on the

comprehension of figurative use of language, but regarding the latter, upon

examining the relevant literature, one would spot areas of neglect in this research

domain (Harris et al., 2006). These two research dimensions of metaphor are not on

a par in terms of the amount of research done, and quantity of figurative research is

weighted in favor of the comprehension side.

Of relevance to the aim of the present study is the question of the a priori

stylistic preference for one figurative form over another, being metaphor and simile

Penchant and . . . | 3

in this case, and also of the perceived degree of agreement between the salient

features of the vehicle and those of the tenor in question aptness on the part of the

receiver of language.

Making comparative predications about similes and metaphors, some

psychological models of figurative language (e.g., Miller, 1979) posit that similes, as

opposed to metaphors, are comparative structures drawing more basic, direct, and

explicit comparisons between tenors and vehicles. Their argument runs that it is the

existence of the preposition like in a simile sentence, not a metaphorical one, which

makes the comparison so mentally vivid and clear. On the other hand, these

psychological models regard metaphors as short, or abbreviated, forms of simile

which state an implicit comparison (Harris et al., 2006). Reading between the lines,

these models seem to draw heavily on syntactic features and do not take the

discourse context into any consideration.

Regarding the relationship between metaphors and similes, another model,

eagerly embraced by Mac Cormac (1985), sets out to distinguish between these two

figurative devices. Here, it is argued that the choice of metaphor is most probably

motivated by a desire on the part of the speaker or the writer to highlight both the

similarities and the differences simultaneously existing between the tenor and the

vehicle. However, as maintained by this model, when the goal is to highlight just the

similarities, similes will come to the fore. In case of novel metaphors, metaphors

which are not highly conventionalized (Kövecses, 2002), the occurrence of

uncommon tenors and vehicles together causes surprise, which in turn demands

much more mental processing than the sort we would come up with in a simile

(Ricoeur, 1977).

Yet, another intriguing model is attributive categorization or class-inclusion

(Blasko & Connine, 1993; Gernsbacher, Keysar, Robertson, & Werner, 2001;

Glucksberg, 1991, 1998, 2001, 2003; Glucksberg, Newsome, & Goldvarg, 2001;

McGlone & Manfredi, 2001). According to this model of metaphor, the vehicle has

05). The argument is that the vehicle has the

capability to carry both literal and figurative meanings. Take this illuminating

example. When interpreted in a literal and metaphorical sense, respectively, gold can

refer both to an example and to a class of objects (e.g., That bracelet is gold and

Happiness is gold). In the second example, gold metaphorically refers to the class of

valuable objects. Corollary to this argument, during the process of metaphorical

comprehension, the metaphorical reference of the vehicle is bound to be cognitively

triggered, and the literal reference is reserved for other times of literal interpretation

(McGlone & Manfredi, 2001). Viewed from this angle, metaphor is a more direct

and explicit statement of comparison, and therefore, is easier to comprehend than its

simile counterpart.

4 | IJALS 2 (1)

A common quality that both metaphors and similes share is the degree of

concreteness of the comparisons they make. It might be the case that, under certain

linguistic circumstances, L2 learners of English stylistically prefer metaphors or

similes. On the evidence of one research study (Gibb & Wales, 1990), it was

suggested that when the vehicle was abstract, metaphors were preferred, and when it

was concrete, simile forms were the prime candidates. In this connection, it was

shown that the degree of concreteness of the tenor played no significant role. Also,

Zelman et al. (as cited in Harris et al., 2006) found a positive correlation between the

degree of concreteness and the degree of comprehensibility.

Also, being interested in the stylistic choice of wording in sentences, Harris

et al. (2006) examined the preference for the choice of metaphors and similes on the

part of native English-speaking students. Overall, similes were perceived over

metaphors, with mean preferences of 72% and 28%, respectively.

Chiappe & Kennedy, 1999; Gibbs, 1993, 1994; Katz, 1989, 1992; Malgady &

Johnson, 1976; Tourangeau & Sternberg, 1981, 1982). For example, A train is like a

worm may not be a very apt comparison because the comparison fails to encompass

many of the main features of a train like its typical strength and power. However, a

figurative sentence such as Oil is like liquid gold may seem a very apt comparison,

for the comparison does seem to capture many of the salient features of oil, such as

its value and rarity. It is generally believed that how immediately people are able to

figure out the perceived overlapping properties of the vehicle and the topic is a

crucial factor in the comprehensibility of a comparison (D. Chiappe, Kennedy, & P.

Chiappe, 2003).

In an empirical study, Jones and Estes (2006) investigated the role of

conventionality and aptness in metaphor comprehension. The results of their study

showed that aptness, not conventionality, affected the preference for the choice of

metaphors over similes. Metaphor preferences correlated closely with high apt

comparisons than for low apt comparisons. This replicates exactly the results of the

study by Chiappe and Kennedy (1999), which gave confirmation to class-inclusion

theory. The researcher found that aptness was conducive to the prediction of the

form of the comparisons in question. The participants were asked to judge whether

particular comparisons were best expressed as metaphors or similes. This created a

range of preferences, with highly apt comparisons being more likely to be chosen as

metaphors than as similes. However, in another study conducted by Harris et al.

(2006), no significant relation was found between the perceived mean aptness

ratings for the simile and metaphor versions and the Figure-Type mean preferences

for metaphors and similes.

Penchant and . . . | 5

Given the above conflicting findings regarding the relative role of aptness in

influencing the preference for the choice of metaphors and similes, the main purpose

of the present study was to test for the supposed correlation between the perceived

degree of aptness and a priori stylistic preference for metaphors and similes by

Iranian L2 learners. The study, therefore, sought to test the following null

hypotheses:

H01: There is no significant difference between the mean preference scores

by Iranian EFL undergraduates for metaphors and the mean preference

scores for similes.

H02: There is no significant difference between the mean aptness ratings by

Iranian EFL undergraduates for metaphors and the mean aptness ratings for

similes.

H03: There is no significant correlation between the mean aptness ratings

for simile and metaphor versions and the mean preference scores by Iranian

EFL undergraduates for similes and metaphors.

2. Methodology

2.1 Participants

The participants were selected from a total population of 80 male and

female EFL Translation undergraduates, aged 20-25, from Shahrekord University in

their fourth year of study. In order to ensure the homogeneous entry behavior of the

participants in terms of proficiency, the Oxford Placement Test (OPT), with

reasonable measures of validity and reliability, was used to screen the students. The

participants who scored lower than 50% of the total possible score (100, M = 50, SD

= 20) were excluded from the study. This filtering process left the present researcher

with 40 participants. The reason for the selection of these fourth-year participants

was that they were already familiar with the concept of metaphor and simile in

English, besides their native language knowledge, because they had passed courses

on English Literature and Translation of Idiomatic Expressions. In this way, they

might be considered advanced learners.

2.2 Materials and Procedure

This research study consisted of two experimental phases: Experiment 1

and Experiment 2, each with its own specific procedure.

preference for one form over another. The participants were invited to mull over the

two alternative forms of the same sentence and say which one they preferred: the

6 | IJALS 2 (1)

simile form or the metaphorical one (e.g., Research is like mountain climbing

instead of Research is mountain climbing). They were given a sheet with two

columns of 16 sentence-pairs. There was either the metaphor or simile version of a

given sentence in each column, with the alternative version in the other column. The

rational for the selection of the tropes was topic concreteness. Half of them

contained concrete tenors/subjects (e.g., The giraffe is (like) a skyscraper), whereas

half contained abstract tenors/subjects (e.g., Creativity is (like) a toaster). The task

preferred in the small box beside the sentence.

As for Experiment 2, the main focus of attention was on how well the topic

and the vehicle could jibe with aptness. In other words, a special attempt was made

to investigate how well the vehicle would be able to capture the salient features of

the topic in question. There were two alternative lists (A and B). Each list consisted

of the same eight metaphors and eight similes as in Experiment 1. The participants

received one of the parallel lists so that each participant rated only the figurative

sentences of one of the two forms as to their appropriateness (congruity of the topic

and the vehicle, aptness). Next to each sentence was a 7-point scale: 1 (very

inappropriate), 2 (inappropriate), 3 (almost inappropriate), 4 (moderately

inappropriate), 5 (almost appropriate), 6 (appropriate), and 7 (very appropriate).

Participants were asked to circle one of the scales between the two end anchors.

3. Data Analysis

3.1 The Results of Experiment 1

As mentioned in section 2.3, the purpose of Experiment 1 was to assess the

partici

simile in this case. The data from the participants, who compared two alternative

forms of the same sentence (i.e., metaphor or simile), were statistically analyzed to

come up with the mean preference scores for both similes and metaphors:

Table 1 Mean Preference Scores for Metaphors and Similes

N Sum Mean Std. Deviation

Simile 40 351 8.78 3.051

Metaphor 40 289 7.23 3.051

Valid N (listwise) 40

As shown in Table 1, in general, similes were preferred over metaphors,

with mean preference scores of 8.78 and 7.23, respectively.

Penchant and . . . | 7

Also, in order to ascertain if this statistical difference between the mean

preference scores for metaphors and the mean preference scores for similes was

statistically meaningful, a paired samples t test was run between the two mean

scores:

Table 2 Paired Samples t Test for Metaphors and Similes

Paired Differences

t df Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95%

Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1

Simile -

Metaphor

1.550 6.101 .96 -.401 3.501 1.607 39 .116

As seen in Table 2, there is no statistically meaningful difference between

the mean preference scores for metaphors and the mean preference scores for similes

(t = 1.607, df p = 0.116). Because p

null hypothesis is not rejected.

3.2 The Results of Experiment 2

As mentioned in section 2.3, the purpose of Experiment 2 was to gauge the

degree of aptness as conceived by the L2 learners, becoming operationalized by

requiring the participants to rate simile and metaphor sentences on a scale ranging

from 1 (very inappropriate) to 7 (very appropriate). The data were subjected to

descriptive statistics to acquire the mean aptness ratings for both similes and

metaphors:

Table 3 Mean Aptness Ratings for Metaphors

N Mean Std. Deviation

Score 20 4.6969 .71355

Valid N (listwise) 20

Table 4 Mean Aptness Ratings for Similes

N Mean Std. Deviation

Score 21 4.8512 .45478

Valid N (listwise) 21

8 | IJALS 2 (1)

As shown in the Tables 3 and 4, the mean aptness rating for metaphors is

equal to 4.696, whereas the mean aptness rating for simile is 4.851. At face value,

there was marginal difference between these two aptness rating means.

To see if the obtained difference between the mean aptness ratings for

simile sentences and the mean aptness ratings for metaphor sentences was

statistically significant, a paired samples t test was run between the two mean

scores:

Table 5 Paired Samples t Test for Mean Aptness Ratings for Metaphors and Similes

Paired Differences

t df Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95%

Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1

Figure

type -

Score

1.888 6.325 .77 -.301 4.501 1.123 40 .129

As depicted in Table 5, Figure Type variable had no effect on the degree of

aptness (t = 1.123, df p = 0. 129.412). Because p value is more than

metaphors and the mean aptness ratings for similes. So, the second null hypothesis

was also maintained.

Moreover, to check any correlation between aptness and Figure-Type

preference, the mean aptness ratings for the metaphor and simile versions obtained

from Experiment 2 were compared with their preference ratings for metaphors and

similes obtained from Experiment 1, and they were statistically analyzed, using the

Pearson Product Moment Correlation:

Penchant and . . . | 9

Table 6 Correlation Between Aptness and Figure-Type Preference

Score

Number of

Similes

Number of

Metaphors

Score Pearson Correlation 1 .014 -.014

Sig. (2-tailed) .933 .933

N 40 40 40

Number of

Similes

Pearson Correlation .014 1 -1.000(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .933 .000

N 40 40 40

Number of

Metaphors

Pearson Correlation -.014 -1.000(**) 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .933 .000

N 40 40 40

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 6 illustrates a weak relationship between aptness and Figure-Type

preference (r = -0.014 for the metaphors; r = 0.014 for the similes). Therefore, the

third null hypothesis was maintained, too.

4. Discussion and Conclusion

Overall, the two versions of the sentences, metaphors and similes, had no

effect on the choice of one form over the other. This finding is not consistent with

the one by Gibb and Wales (1990), who came to the conclusion that sentences

featuring abstract vehicles were more often chosen by the participants in the

metaphor form than in the simile form, and the one by Harris et al. (2006), who

found a significant difference between the preference scores for metaphors (28%)

and the preference scores for similes (72%). Apparently, the Iranian L2 learners

considered both metaphors and similes to fulfill one single function: drawing the

attention to the similarities existing between the tenor and the vehicle. Similes and

metaphors, in this study, were conceived by the participants as conveying the idea of

similarity rather than difference. This preference for both similes and metaphors as

the definite indicators of similarity was clearly accounted for by the heavy bent

towards the choice of the discourse goal of Compare Similarities for both metaphors

and similes in the study by Hashemian and Iravani (2010). In this study, the

discourse goal of Contrast Differences had no major role to play in informing the

similes. This finding stands in contrast to that of MacCormac (1985), who

maintained that the major function performed by metaphors is that of projection of

both similarities and differences. His markedly different line of argument runs the

explanation that the choice of metaphor, as against similes, exclusively characterized

10 | IJALS 2 (1)

by similarity, is most probably motivated by a desire on the part of the speaker or

the writer to highlight both similarities and differences simultaneously existing

between the tenor and the vehicle. Patently, the present study failed to come up with

this controversial finding.

As an alternative to the explanation for the obtained results, one might

attribute lack of significance between the mean preference scores for metaphors and

the mean preference scores for similes to the existence of no abstract vehicles in the

materials presented to the participants (Harris et al., 2006). All the simile and

metaphor sentences used in this study contained exclusively concrete vehicle. It

might be the case that the degree of concreteness of the vehicle could affect

stylistically the choice of metaphors or similes. In the study carried out by Gibb and

Wales (1990), it was metaphors that the participants mostly opted for regarding the

Abstract-tenor sentences and similes that most often chosen for Concrete-tenor

sentences. Therefore, the present study, due to inherent differences in stimuli, was

unable to find such an effect.

Regarding the second null hypothesis, Figure Type variable had no

significant effect on the perceived degree of aptness by the participants for

metaphors and similes. All in all, one could argue that both metaphors and similes

were rated as appropriate in terms of their degree of aptness. Extending this finding

to the findings obtained in the experiment by Hashemian and Iravani (2010), one

could see no relation between the dominant choice of the discourse goal of Compare

Similarities and the perceived degree of aptness for metaphors and similes. Were it

to suppose that the dominant choice of the discourse goal of Compare Similarities

for simile form would predict the degree of aptness for similes, the similes would

have been rated as more apt in this experiment. However, no such effect was found

strong tendency in the abovementioned study to choose similes as conveying the

idea of Compare Similarities is not due to the fact that similes, in general, are more

apt for making the comparisons. This finding (Hashemian & Iravani, 2010) offers

further support for that by Harris et al. (2006) who also found no significant

difference between the mean aptness ratings for metaphors (4.88) and the mean

aptness ratings for similes (5.08), both being rated as appropriate in terms of the

extent to which their vehicles were able to state and encompass many of the main

characteristics of the tenor.

Also, regarding the third null hypothesis, the possible relation between the

perceived mean aptness ratings for the simile and metaphor versions and the Figure-

Type mean preferences for metaphors and similes obtained from Experiment 1, no

direct relationship was found (r = -0.014 for the metaphors; r = 0.014 for the

similes). This finding is in line with that by Harris et al. (2006), who also found a

weak correlation between aptness and Figure-Type preference for metaphors (r =

Penchant and . . . | 11

0.11) and similes (r = -0.11). However, the results run contrary to the findings of the

study by Chiappe and Kennedy (1999) who concluded that those comparisons rated

as more apt turned out to be those comparisons that were mostly metaphors rather

than similes. However, the present study does not support this finding. As such, the

degree of aptness was not found to be a good barometer for the preference for

metaphor or simile versions.

In sum, no significant difference was found between the mean preference

for metaphors and the mean preference for similes. The difference between the mean

aptness ratings for metaphors and the mean aptness ratings for similes did not turn

out to be statistically meaningful. Also, no significant correlation was found

between the perceived degree of aptness and a priori stylistic preference for

metaphors and similes by Iranian L2 learners.

Like any other research study in this contemporary world, this empirical

study was not able, mostly due to practical considerations, to fully capture all the

intriguing and important aspects of the phenomenon under investigation. Certainly,

there are methodologically fruitful and important insights for future metaphor

researchers, hidden in this piece of work. The hope is that prospective L2

researchers keep these suggestions on the front burner and apply them to their

forthcoming research studies.

Given the lack of any significant difference between the mean preference

scores for metaphors and the mean preference scores for similes in Experiment 1,

future researchers are strongly advised to also include abstract vehicles in their

materials. All the simile and metaphor sentences used in this study contained

exclusively concrete vehicle. It might be the case that the degree of concreteness of

the vehicle could affect stylistically the choice of metaphors or similes.

Also, considering the possibility that no significant relation was found

between Aptness and Figure-Type preference as a result of the materials being not

sufficient, future research might consider the inclusion of more items as a way to

tackle this possibility.

References

Blasko, D. G., & Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 295-308.

Cameron, L., & Low, G. (Eds.) (1999). Researching and applying metaphor. Cambridge University Press.

Chiappe, D. L., & Kennedy, J. M. (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 668-676.

12 | IJALS 2 (1)

Chiappe, D. L., Kennedy, J. M., & Chiappe, P. (2003). Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 31, 51-68.

Gernsbacher, M. A., Keysar, B., Robertson, R. R. W., & Werner, N. K. (2001). The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 433-450.

Gibb, H., & Wales, R. (1990). Metaphor or simile: Psychological determinants of the differential use of each sentence form. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 5, 199-213.

Gibbs, R. W. (1993). Process and products in making sense of tropes. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 252-276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Glucksberg, S. (1991). Beyond literal meanings: The psychology of allusions. Psychological Science, 3, 146-152.

Glucksberg, S. (1998). Understanding metaphors. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 39-43.

Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. NY: Oxford University Press.

Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 92-96.

Glucksberg, S., Newsome, M. R., & Goldvarg, Y. (2001). Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor & Symbol, 16, 277-293.

Harris, R. J., Friel, B. M., & Mickelson, N. R. (2006). Attribution of discourse goals for using concrete- and abstract-tenor metaphors and similes with or without discourse context. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 863-879.

Hashemian, M., & Iravani, M. (2010). Why figurative language: Perceived discourse goals for metaphors and similes by L2 learners. Journal of Applied Language Studies, 1(2), 36-50.

Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z. (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 110-124.

Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z. (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 18-32.

Katz, A. (1989). On choosing the vehicles of metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 486-499.

Penchant and . . . | 13

Katz, A. (1992). Psychological studies of metaphor processing: Extensions to the placement of terms in semantic space. Poetics Today, 13, 607-632.

Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press.

Lankton, S. R. (2002). Foreword. In R. Battino (Ed.), Metaphoria: Metaphor and guided metaphor for psychotherapy and healing (pp. 5-15). Williston, VT: Crown House.

MacCormac, E. R. (1985). A cognitive theory of metaphor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Malgady, R., & Johnson, M. (1976). Modifiers in metaphors: Effects of constituent phrase similarity on the interpretation of figurative sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 43-52.

McGlone, M. S., & Manfredi, D. A. (2001). Topic-vehicle interaction in metaphor comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1209-1219

Miller, G. A. (1979). Images and models, similes and metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202-250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ricoeur, P. (1977). The rule of metaphor: Multi-disciplinary studies of the creation of meaning in language (R. Czerny et al., Trans.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. (Original work published 1975)

Roberts, R. M., & Kreuz, R. J. (1994). Why do people use figurative language? Psychological Science, 5, 159-163.

Steen, G. (2004). Can discourse properties of metaphor affect metaphor recognition? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1295-1313.

Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. (1981). Aptness in metaphor. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 27-55.

Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. (1982). Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cognition, 11, 203-244.

Van Lancker, D. (2003). Auditory recognition of idioms by native and nonnative speakers of English: It takes one to know one. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 45-57.

Mahmood Hashemian is an assistant professor at Shahrekord University. His area

of research includes cognitive-semantic linguistics, sociolinguistics, and applied

linguistics. He has published articles in academic journals such as IJAL, IJLS,

JALS, Linguistik online, JLTR, TPLS, Iranian EFL Journal, and International

Journal of Social Sciences. Also, he has given lectures in conferences such as

TELLSI (4, 7, 8, &9), LDP2010, ELT in the Islamic World, and 2nd International

Language Conference (ILC) 2011, Malaysia.